User talk:Herbythyme - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SkyWalker (talk | contribs) at 07:31, 20 January 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:31, 20 January 2008 by SkyWalker (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Old stuff drifted off into the sunset:
Start to November 07 November 07 to

Legistorm.com

Thank you. I do understand that. I'm trying to be civil.

I'm an admin myself, but I'd prefer not to remove the site because I'm honestly not familiar with this area of the project. Before this happened, I didn't even know we had such a list. It seems that a handful of users maintain it almost exclusively, and I didn't want to step on any toes. Would it be unwise for me to remove the link myself? Do people ever run an RfC on this issue? It seems like a waste to me, but I'm very frustrated with how this is going. Cool Hand Luke 09:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It goes without saying that I very much appreciate what you do around here, Herby, and so tactfully, too.

I think in the interest of encyclopedia-building it's worth considering some sort of controlled removal of the legistorm.com links from the blacklist. I don't think that should be discussed, however, while folks are still riled up and sticking sticks in your and Hu12's eyes.
--A. B. 18:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with removal in some shape/size/form/timescale. However the linkage is excessive. I can find a whole bundle of things to do with me time than play the games I left en wp to avoid so it will have to be nice & calm for me to come up with anything constructive I think. Thanks for your help A. B. --Herby 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well stick around -- we really need you on en.wikipedia. Close your eyes, take a deep breath and visualize whirled peas.
--A. B. 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: whitelist

Thanks, I've added the request now. Waggers (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I've tested it and it seemed happy with the link. Thanks again, Waggers (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Pygmalion Books

Herby, I have added some arguments about the Pygmalion Books situation to their spam section. Out of all the other moderators involved, I have only seen you admit that there may have actually been some substantial non-spam in the information I added. While I'm willing to admit that I may have gone overboard with some articles, I believe your hunch here to be the case. I can go into further detail on the specific articles that I think merits their contribution if you'd like.205.200.244.98 (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#pygmalionbooks.org --Hu12 (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hu12, I had already added the link to the spam page in my message above. I'm not sure what the purpose is in posting redundant information here? 205.200.244.98 (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is the archive search working for you? Last few days its not been returning accurate results. --Hu12 (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I've used it recently but I think I did try one just before Christmas which seemed ok. Is Eagle around/active at present? Or toolserver issue? Cheers --Herby 13:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Havent seen him, did a search on cafepellicola.com (one you just discussed on whitelist), only the request shows up, not the archive..hmmm--Hu12 (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately that one was logged - the problem would be far worse with unlogged entries. I've just removed another on Meta because there is not info on the rationale. I notice B added one and despite my request it is not logged. --Herby 13:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Zombies!

Hi, Herbythyme! I use an automated tool (i.e. no human intervention) that runs 24/7 to detect whenever an XRumer spambot creates new pages. Whenever it finds such a page, it will delete it and block the IP that created it, as XRumer operates only either from botnets (in which case they should be blocked) or the spammer's computer (which should probably be blocked too). I know DerHexer handles XRumer a lot on the smaller wikis, maybe you should get in touch with him? Just get back to me on my talk page if you need my tool or anything else. All the best, east.718 at 21:00, December 27, 2007

There's a report page set up here which you may find more useful. east.718 at 11:20, December 28, 2007

I'd rather identify and block zombie proxies - hopefully I can get more stewards to watch my report page to help stop spam on small wikis. It's really no effort for me to do this at all. east.718 at 12:07, January 3, 2008

I'm watching it now. But I've not written a script yet to block these spambots on smaller projects. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

sneaky work around of blacklist

re: Appears a new attempt by easy-forex.com, to subvert the blacklist by using freewebs. see freewebs.com/tradeforeignexchange. Any chance this can be added to the global also?.. Ive already added this to the archive on meta, so logging the link above is already done. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Consider it done (bit later today tho) cheers --Herby 08:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Another from same (IP 196.217.155.53) directoryforex.com ...frickin persistant--Hu12 (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is going to be a long drawn out issue...easyforexforum.com... ugh--Hu12 (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Done them, cheers --Herby 16:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks..--Hu12 (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hum

Re your message: Thanks for alerting me about that. I don't use my Meta account very often. He was a particularly persistent vandal. I see you blocked him over there. He ended up with a range block over here. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hi Herby,

I'm wanting to check to see if it was you granting me access to use twinkle since i've post the message on WikiProjectSpam if it was you granting me access to use twinkle thanks, and yes the message was the truth my old account got closed down by me, and i've created this one, mainly because some users previously was annoying me and got fed up and decided to create this account. →Yun-Yuuzhan→ 19:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

more about CAT:AOTR

For a final version of the message I've sent to many admins (I am up to the "F"s) see User:Lar/catmsg. You may want to review it. links changed (I changed your archive just now in fact) Note alsos... 1) since the table page has been moved from a cat to a non cat, the edit history has been lost. You may want to re-edit your entry in the table to validate that it was you that added it. 2) Since you're, I think, using my criteria/process, you may want to give a link to a specific history entry version of the page, heck I may change mine to say that admins that start with H only need 1 petitioner to get recalled or something :) Cacharoth's entry is an example of how that was done. ++Lar: t/c 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category member!
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

Hello fellow Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.

But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.

I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though.

But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.

Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version.

Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.

I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.

Larry Pieniazek

NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "F"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "G"s, and "H"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

PS that was the OFFICIAL message for the G's and H's :) ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Misplaced Pages:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --El on ka 22:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32\|talk\|contribs 05:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I hope you remember about a site which i asked you block it. A website called empiretotalwar.co.uk. Well that guy is spamming his site again. is there anything you can do to block him and his sites. He seems to having a dynamic ip and plus he is redirecting the traffic to that site. I know this going to be hard. Is there anything you can do about it?. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)